JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum America's Watershed Election.

Hi Folks.Ihave been following the primary elections from this side of the pond,and this is now "Super Tuesday" with some of the main players state wise deciding who will stand for President,it really is building up into a fascinating election.
McCain looks a certainty to be the Republican nominee..BUT..the Democrats is neck and neck Clinton or Obama..Fascinating!! in the respect The first ever woman President or, The first ever black President,it really is a watershed in American politics,and the outcome of these elections affects the whole world,in these uncertain times we live in.In 1973 when Margaret Thatcher was appointed by Ted Heath(Prime minister) to his cabinet,she was asked"do you ever see a woman prime minister in your lifetime".."NO NEVER" she replied,,well history paints a different picture..old iron knickers was elected prime minister in 1979 ,and she ruled her office with an iron fist,dominated politics in this country, and overseas and spawned the word "Thatcherism"and of course her and Ronald Reagan formed a mutual admiration society.Something tells me Hillary Clinton is out the same mould,tho' in theory a wee bit of "damaged goods" in the respect of her wayfaring husband.but i think that will make her stronger,she has the pedigree because she has been round the circuit before tho in the back seat so to speak..but she will be aware of the pitfalls...Obama is another facinating candidate in the respect of the "new kid on the block"not only in his political outlook but he is more or less challenging the American public to do something that would have been totally unheard of only a few short years ago..elect a black man as President..he is a fine candidate,and in todays political climate this is a chance for the American people to change the course of history.A Black President...I certainly think it is between these two,so this will be America's Watershed Election.

Unfortunately our next President will be determined by the Television News Media not by the Public so this election is already determined.

No mater who wins we will still have an evil Demopublican.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

ok then it is going to very interesting to see who they jump into bed with

unfortunately Doug..poiticians are a neccesary evil..

Yes, no matter who gets in, that third, behind the scenes party, (big business) will still pull the strings.

The news media has already done a great job of minimalizing Ron Paul and Huckabbe.
They are courting the stars. All you have to do is watch how much time is spent on each candidate and you can determine who they are backing.
At this point I think they have eliminated all the candidates they want out. From this point forward it doesn't matter much. The 4 frontrunners are all basically the same BULLSHIT

Bill,

As far as our perceptions of the election process, we couldn't be much farther spsrt. But as a friend, I would be pressed harder to find a better one. All the best to ya!

Al

Al you may be right.
We are probably on opposite sides of the table.

I know we have a good system. It has made our country what it is today. I just think we have let things go a little awry.
I think all candidates should be given equal air time, both by the news media and through advertising.
Look a what Obama was able to do in January. 32 Million dollars. That money can and will be used to put his face in front of every voter in the states on tuesday(today). Compare that to the other candidates. How much air time will they be able to buy.
Money buys elections.
I think all Presidential candidates should be allowed the same funds. Equal amounts of money drawn from a central fund. They either get elected with that amount of money or not. Personal or corporate contributions should be illegal unless it goes into the central fund. Using any money outside that fund should be terms for disqualification.

If you have enough money and can get your face if front of more people you will get more votes. It is human nature.
then you add in the News Media. I have had C-span on almost constantly for the last couple days. Alternating with whatever News channel I can find. There is a tremendous difference between the amount of air time is given to the candidates.
All I heard yesterday was OBAMA...Clinton with an occasional refernce to McCain and Romney and it seemed every time they mention McCain they talked about his liberal (demopublican) views. They mention Romney quite a bit but Paul and Huckabee were like an afterthoought.
It is clear to me which way the media is trying to steer this election.

If I hear one more of these superstar candidates say how they are going to "bring back the high paying factory jobs" I think I will scream...It's a crock..it ain't gonna happen.

What bothers me is they are all promising this stuff and none of the four front runners will be able to deliver it.

Hi Guys:

It is so easy to dwell on the negative aspects of our political system. Despite it's apparent weaknesses, there are hidden strengths plus a plethora of checks and balances to prevent our chief executive from going wild like that idiot, Hugo Chavez just tried to do in Venezuela. Thank goodness the people there rejected his plan to become a complete dictator.

No matter who wins the primary slugfest, we still have the final election to endure. I, for one, would like to see the process shrunk to a much smaller period of time. We spend entirely too much time getting people elected. Unfortunately, most of them just happen to be rich or are completely owned by those with hidden agendas in either of our two major parties or by the media conglomerates. I would rather see these Senators, Governors and Representatives spending time doing their jobs (for which they were elected) than running... and running... and running for another office.

Whatever happens... I hope our nation will begin to return to the center of the page and support the eventual winner, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent.

Is it just me or has anyone been impressed with the candidacy of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee? In my opinion, both were impressive in the debates compared to their counterparts in either party.

Thank you Terry for bringing up this thread. It is an interesting process and I wish there could be a way to keep the media from trying to influence our thought processes with outright lies, halftruths and just plain stupidity. Those of you who have not visited other countries throughout the world and do not understand just how good we have it here, should expand your horizons just a little. If it's so bad here, why are so many trying so hard to get in?

Thank God we are able to have and express our opinions without fear of retribution.

God Bless America!

Dave

IMHO
Ron Paul and Huckabee were the only two that made any sense at all.
But since it is Highly unlikely either will be in the final pick it leaves us to try to find the candidate that will mkae a better world for our kids and grandkids.

I am from Michigan and as I understand it my vote doesn't count anyway. the Reps and Dems disallowed our state. I don't understand how they can do that. How can they just decide our votes don't count?

Because the Democratic and Republic "Parties" are private systems that you can elect to participate in.

They set the rules for how they want to operate; and it is your right to opt-in or play outside the system.

Of course in practical terms, they are the only two choices - so playing by their rules can kinda suck.

If you want to see another illustration of "party rules" - just wiki for Super delegate.

Cheers,
Ethan

There are three things I would like to see done within the American political system.

First, eliminate and outlaw ANY form of financial backing from any source for campaigning or any other purpose unless it it specifically a grant from the government given in the form of media exposure on commercial televison and radio and any other government licensed media, controlled and enforced through the licensing agreements between the government and broadcasters. The time allowed would be equal time to all eligible candidates who have qualified by raising the appropriate number of signatures. Travel and any other expenses may be given some measure of write-off on the candidate's taxes as any other appropriate business expense, but under no circumstances would it be appropriate for an individual or group to subsidize it in any way.

Second, no salaries for national political figures, specifically president, vice-president, cabinet members, both houses of congress, heads of agencies including, but not limited to the IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, or any other high profile leadership position in federal government be allowed to increase without a vote from all eligible voters in national elections.

Third, eliminate and outlaw pork-barreling in any legislation. The criteria should be determined upon challenge by any eligible voter in a court of law. If the item(s) are found embedded in a bill of legislation that does not show direct causal relationship to the purpose of the bill, then those items should be excluded from the bill and all participants responsible for inserting the item(s) should be held in contempt and punished by fine and/or jail time or both.

I know this is pie-in-the-sky, but these specific things would give cause for politicians to more directly serve the people. It might bring out the better side of the people who choose to go into politics and help prevent their descent into the political morass of the current system.

Read this book: The End of America by Naomi Wolf.

An observation don't know if it means anything.

I just watched a 3 minute clip on todays Election coverage on the news.
It started off with Hillary. Showed some footage and talked about her and Bill casting their vote
Switch to Obama Showed him voting and talking about the Election.
Switch Back to Hillary
Then switch to Romney Showed him going into a voting place.
Mentioned hillary and the Clintons twice during clip Mention obama twice. It was Romneys clip but they only mentioned him once.
Then switch to McCain in the Voting place. Mention Obama once Mention "the Clintons" once, mentioned Hillary again. Mentioned McCain once. Closed out mentioning Romney and a final shot of Hillary.
Not a single word about Ron Paul or Huckabee.

But they don't show favoritism and try to influence our voting

Uh No,
Not exactly a Watershed Election. Many Presidents start out With the greatest of ease, just like the man on the flying trapeze, But as time goes by the low down liberal stinkin' news media hack away, and hack away, until the president was a mistake, but on, on I say!, to the next great sucker, er uh, Candidate.

No matter who gets the grand prize, all the problems that need a fix will still exist.

The reason you can't say that the Gov must fund all candidates equally is because what would then stop 10,000 people from running? And if you suggest the government (or someone else) would be in charge of narrowing the field down based on any criteria, then THAT criteria would be the corruption point. I understand the desire behind your idea, but it just doesn't actually work. I don't like the idea of someone buying political office. It's like the ultimate trophy for rich people and/or connected people. I think term limits is the true solution to ALL of this. But people say that's unconstitutional because it limits people being able to choose their own representative. But when you career politicians (Robert Byrd, the "Exalted Cyclops" of the KKK) has been a Democratic Senator in West Virginian since 1959. That's just stupid by any measurement. Like he has any clue about the real life of his constituents. The last time he wasn't a politician, he was a racist leader in the KKK. That's great real life experience to draw from.

I know for sure that our founding fathers intended for folks to come out of private life, serve in various positions and return to private life in between (or for good). Sure, there were powerful political figures who did many different things, but even THAT would be an improvement. You aren't learning a damn thing about representing the interests of the people by being a career politician. All you learn is how to work the system and screw the other guy while greedily hanging on to power. Ack.

2 4 year terms for Reps.. 2 4 year terms for Senators.. 2 4 year terms for Presidents. That's what it should be. MAX. That ensures change every half generation.

Brian

We have a different system in Canada. Each party in each district, through their delegates, elects the person that will represent them. The members(delegates) of each party will elect their leader. In a general election the party electing the most people will form the government. Each party is only allowed to spend a certain amount on their campaign and each member is capped in their spending. All donations must be made public and a cap is put on how much any one person or company can donate.

You don't have to be filthy rich to run for government here, but it helps if you are.

"out behind the shed" election is what it should be called with all the wheeling and dealing that's going on.
meh, i'd rather write in homer simpson.
rock on,
r.

Well here we are
One day post super tuesday and I can't find out who came out the leader. It sounds like Hllary by a nose amd McCain with a little lead I need to search google.
Anyone know?

EDIT OK I found this

Personally, i think McCain looks like a lizard. Am i wrong?

"Super Tuesday Settled Nothing" - CNN

Super Tuesday failed to spark a decisive battle in the presidential races, with results from two dozen states leaving candidates in both parties far from their respective nominations.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona picked up big wins Tuesday night.

Sen. John McCain took the lion's share of Republican delegates on Super Tuesday, but still had only about 51 percent of the amount needed to secure his party's nomination.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton comes away with about 41 percent of the delegates needed for the nomination while Sen. Barack Obama sits at 36 percent.

California and New Mexico results are yet to be finalized.

Now the focus of the presidential races is on primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia next Tuesday.

The candidates hope to gain momentum for those with victories in the Louisiana primaries and Washington state caucuses on Saturday. Video Watch why the races will go on »

Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns acknowledge an edge to Obama in those races. Clinton will focus on March 4 primaries in Texas and especially Ohio, said the Web site Politico's executive editor Jim VandeHei.

"There are a lot of working-class whites [in Ohio] and she feels she does extraordinarily well with that demographic," VandeHei said on CNN's "American Morning."

Further along, the Clinton camp sees Pennsylvania on April 22 as a state where the demographics work in her favor.

"I look forward to continuing our campaign and our debates about how to leave this country better off for the next generation, because that is the work of my life," Clinton said Tuesday night.

Although Clinton took the majority of delegates in large states like California, New York and New Jersey on Tuesday, Obama won more states overall, 13 to Clinton's eight.

Obama said Wednesday he scored a "big victory" on Tuesday and that he was overcoming Clinton's "political machine" that made her the front-runner in every race.

"This campaign is gaining momentum by the day," he said at a Chicago news conference, repeating his mantra that he is the Democrat who can bring about change.

Clinton's camp disputed the momentum claims, saying their candidate prevailed Tuesday among late deciders.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications director, called for one debate a week between the two Democrats leading up to the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas.

"We won the votes of people who decided on the last day. We did that in large measure ... because of a very strong debate performance," Wolfson said.

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean expressed satisfaction Wednesday with the primaries and what the Super Tuesday results mean for his party.

"I think it's good that we go deep in the nominating process," Dean said. "I want our candidates to be exposed in all of the states -- in places like Pennsylvania and Washington D.C., and Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin. Good for the Democratic Party, good for the country to see candidates up close," Dean said on "American Morning."

Democrats award delegates based on a proportion of the vote -- so Tuesday's primaries and caucuses were less decisive than in the Republican races, where many states awarded delegates on a winner-take-all basis. More about delegates

Despite being only about halfway to the delegates needed for the nomination, McCain, an Arizona senator, has become the clear favorite in the race. He's won more than double the number of delegates than those for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and more than three times those earned by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"Tonight I think we must get used to the idea that we are the Republican Party front-runner for the nomination of president of the United States. And I don't really mind it one bit," McCain said as results came in Tuesday.
Don't Miss

* Complete Super Tuesday results
* McCain pulls ahead in GOP race
* Analysis: Split decision may help Obama

Huckabee, buoyed by victories Tuesday in Arkansas, West Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama, pledged Wednesday to stay in the race until the end.

"It may be that none of us have enough [delegates] to win the whole thing until we get to the convention," he said. "If I don't stay in the race, I can't win."

Romney on Tuesday won Massachusetts and Utah and came out on top in caucuses in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and Minnesota. It was enough to keep him plugging.

"We're going to battle, go all the way to the convention, win this thing, and get to the White House," Romney said Tuesday night.

But top Romney advisers acknowledged that it will be difficult to overcome McCain's lead in the delegate count.

"It is tough to saddle up this a.m.," one Romney adviser told CNN.


CNN analyst and Slate.com chief political correspondent John Dickerson said Wednesday that if McCain can nail down the nomination quickly, it could help him in a November matchup against either Obama or Clinton if the Democratic primary race remains close.

"The problem with the Democratic Party is if this gets ugly," Dickerson said. "If you start to get a breakdown along racial and gender lines -- which can get very ugly very fast ... McCain has a period of time to relax while the Democrats tear each other apart."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/06/super.main/index.html

That is where the signatures come in. Obviously in the US it would take numbers in the millions and you will not find 10 people who will garner a million signatures to be put on a ballot, without forging names, but those who work hard enough at it might accomplish that goal with enough supporters to get out and campaign and gather the signatures. I understand your point, but I frankly think your example is as unlikely if my idea was set in motion as it is likely that my idea was set in motion in the first place.

I think more importantly than that article is that i cannot trust someone who looks like a lizard to be president. no exceptions.

Well I thought a well fed chipmunk but he is still one hell of a tough guy so I wouldn't say it to his face.

ha a well fed chipmunk. that's a good one.

yeah didn't he have some pretty bad things happen to him, like getting his kneecaps busted?

i'd still never vote for him though!

When will we have the sense to put someone in office who will close our borders, straighten out the illegal immigration problem once and for all, fix the unfair tax structure, and give the country back to the voters? There are only 2 candidates even thinking about doing this, and neither will win the primary. Hint, both are republicans.

John as long as Money elects the President we will never see things change.
When logic elects the President we might have a chance.

By the time someone gains enough insight to be qualified to run this country they are so corrupted by the system we get the status quo.
And our do nothing congress doesn't help.

With all the problems we have in this country I have been listening to C-Span all day while I work. Right now they are discussing the problem in Kenya. While I have empathy for their problems I don't see why my Tax dollars should be spent paying the congressmen and senators to spend legislative time talking about Kenya. There are people at war and in civil strife all over the world.
Solve our problems first then we can work on the rest of the world.

People in this country should start watching C-span. It's boring as hell but you sure get a sense of why we are in such trouble. They would be appalled at the BS that goes on on a daily basis in our Legislature

Good golly
I am going to jump back in here.
They just introduced a resolution to congratulate the new president of Korea.
Now get this. They are giving speeches about how important it is to pass the resolution. Giving a history lesson about the guy.
Now understand, this is to pass a bill that will allow our gvernment to send a congratulatory letter to the guy.
They will all stand up and give a little speech about it then they will vote on it.
Now I realize that it is a good idea to say congratulations but do they have to spend hours talking about it and pass a bill to be able to do it.
Send the letter already.

Y'know, when I first saw this thread, I considered chiming in to say y'all were wrong--we weren't electing a watershed, we were electing a president. I think I am changing my mind. Maybe we *are* electing a watershed. These guys do certainly sound like they're all wet.

Joe

And you're right--John McCain does look like a well-fed chipmunk. (May be the best thing anybody's said about him in a long time.) Hillary's the one who reminds me of a reptile...

I sometimes turn on C-Span and watch the goings on in government. Now and then there's an interesting set of speeches about some topic.. but mostly it's stuff like Bill described. What I rarely hear is anything actually important to the people across the US. And most of the speeches, even if well written, rarely get to the heart of the issue at hand.

There's a lot (like 99%) of what goes on in a government job that we never know about and that would likely bore us to tears. We seem to only want to deal with the political "highlight" reels that get coverage and the truth is these little issues actually do add up to making everything work (or not work depending on your view). Boring things like local ordinances to the masses really do affect local people's lives. Having a street lamp working is a big deal locally but not beyond that in a given city. On a national stage, little things like relationships with Korea may not seem relevent, but to those doing business there, it matters. It's hard for us to really know which little thing is actually important in the bigger picture and which big thing may be nothing but grandstanding and fodder to keep a 2 party system in place.

Brian

Attending the caucuses last night, I realized once again that our system is fantastic...if we use it. The media can say whatever it wants, but they are not to blame for who we elect...WE are.

Most people vote based on an emotional response to what they watch on TV. They remain blissfully unaware of the particulars of the candidates' platforms. If you want to blame that on the media, go right ahead. Oh, and pass the pretzels. Where is that remote, anyway?

The good news? I have never seen so many people at a caucus in my life. This will be one massive election with the best participation yet.

Yes.

It is so easy to dwell on the negative aspects of our political system.

>>>Yes, it's very easy. Because it sucks. A 'real' good guy has very little chance, Dave.

Despite it's apparent weaknesses, there are hidden strengths plus a plethora of checks and balances to prevent our chief executive from going wild...

It didn't stop that son of a bitch we have for a president, Dave. Sorry, nothing personal. It's just that the past seven years have been the worst of my entire life regarding my realization of the big picture and the corrupt bastards that run it. Bush should be in prison.

Whatever happens... I hope our nation will begin to return to the center of the page and support the eventual winner, whether Republican or Democrat or Independent.

What if I think he's the biggest loser ever to hold office. Do I still have to stand behind him? That's exactly what a lot of people acted like for the first years of the last seven. They'd say, "You don't like Bush? Get the hell out." Yeah. Finally, a few more caught on. I have no intention of supporting a man who I can't stand as a person and who I feel is a fake and a criminal.

Is it just me or has anyone been impressed with the candidacy of Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee?

I hate to even put Huckabee in the same sentence with Ron Paul. I have known of RP for almost 20 years. That's how long he has been a beacon of hope for common sense. He has no chance. I might vote for him anyway.

The system is corrupt, Dave.

JMO, have a good day, oh, eloquent one. You always make such nice posts. Not picking on you. Really.

What I can't figure out is if all the folks I talk to like Ron Paul how come no one votes for him?

I thought Clinton should be in Prison. He actually did commit a crime and was convicted.

As Far as Bush goes
I don't know.

He was only in office 7 months when Al Queda struck. It was planned while clinton was President.

Maybe if Clinton had followed up on Saddam during his eight years in office instead of using the Office for Oral sex and building his and Hillary's own personal wealth maybe we would not have invaded Iraq. I still blame it on Clinton. As far as the Clintons goes I think they are the Most corrupt officials we have had in office in a very long time. but that's my opinion, I might be wrong. But from the things I have read, reports from the US attorney General and stuff, it might be true. and we are fixin to put Hillary in Office. Take a look at her personal income history. Very suspicious.
Take a look at Nafta and what it did for their holdings.
Take a look at the way Hillary turned a $1000 investment into $100,000 in TWELVE MONTHS in cattle futures. The investment community puts the odds of that at 1 in 250 MILLION.
And we are getting ready to make her President?
I think she earns 8 MIl a year. She was a lawyer making about 200 k.
Check this out
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=I

But you know what, that said she might be just what we need. Really shake things up. Of course I don't know how the Arab Countries are gonna deal with it. They don't have a very good history with women's rights.

My daughter, who turned 18 in January and will get to vote for the first time this year, supports Hillary--because she's a crooked woman attorney who manipulates men, and therefore is a good role model. You have been warned...

Joe

Duke,
The things you said about President Bush is so far off base it doesn't even garner a reply. I don't think I would use those words to describe Bill Clinton, for instance. If things are so bad for you, why are you able to still post on this board. Are you eating three squares a day? Have a roof over your head, electric in your house. What is so bad about President Bush that couldn't be applied to most other people as well as Presidents?

Well over here in the UK the results of the"Super Tuesday" primary's have been taking centre stage..According to the UK based American Political Pundits(New York Times& Times Magazine) amongst others, they have McCain as a certainty for the Republican ticket,and Clinton&Obama too close to call..all other candidates seem also-rans,even tho in the Republican camp they are splitting votes because McCain is not universally liked,the other candidates good tho they are, cannot seem to do him a lot of damage.I see a lot of responses on this topic mentioning corruption,skullduggery,nepotism,inside trader knowledge etc...so WHATS NEW..power corrupts, it always has and it always will..The Famous Scottish Comedian Billy Connolly once quoted.."The notion to be a politician..should immediately bar anyone from being one"..have you ever seen anybody slither out of a simple YES or NO answer, like a politician ,it is an art in itself to watch and listen to them,they shave with metal scourer's..to keep their brass necks spotless!..You just cannot embaress these guys,they have skins like crocodiles..once they have their nose in the trough,wild horses cannot pull them out it..BUT,that is the system in the civilsed western world,and to be honest it hasn't changed much in my lifetime,if at all..whether it be this side of the pond or your side of the pond,they are all just clones of each other..No Prime Minister of the UK has ever been born true working class..the same as any American President has ever came from the Bronx(apologies to the Bronx).Why my original post mentioned the word "Watershed"...is and this is only my personal opinion(don't want to start a civil war) from across the Atlantic..i think the Democrats will win by a country mile,so if iam correct it will either be a Black President or a Female President,and if push came to shove i think it will be Obama..that in itself makes it a watershed..notwithstanding, whoever of these two win,other eyes from the other side of the world are watching carefully..and whoever wins is going to be "Tested" probably big-time,to see what they are made of..there is no mileage left in testing Bush..he is going back to running Baseball Teams..his legacy could be written on the back of a postage stamp..only as i see it from here on world affairs i may add..the guy was, and still is dipolmatically clueless and bankrupt,notice how all his henchmen have en-masse distanced themselves from him..you see, the trough was running dry,and they were all getting found out one by one so they decided to jump instead of being pushed..No Pals Bush should be his epitaph..Make no mistake,this is one of the most important Presidential Elections in modern times,if not THE most important...simply because of the world we live in nowadays,and the carnage The previous President has left the world stage in,and may i add as a footnote,the former British Prime Minister.Mr Tony Blair is just as culpable as his buddy in the White House,during his tenure.....Terry,,,

Yikes!
Terry, when the local networks have nothing of interest to show on politics here they show the House of Commons debating things over there. I get pretty bored with it so I rarely watch it but it is also pretty comical. Several of my direct ancesters were members of the House of Commons and things got quite a bit more testy back then.

It seems the BBC is the political "Hack" over there. Sensational News is the order of the day so they can sell "It".
The New York Times is the Political "Hack" over here. It "Sells" in some markets but most people can see right thru all the hype.
You have to take everything with a grain of salt as things are never like the seem to be.

All government is evil by definition. Government is one group of people using force to make others do what they want. The use of force in any situation except self defense is evil.

Anarchy is the the only non evil system.

I beg to differ with you Doug. ALL government is not evil. I am a part of "government"..and I am far from evil. I work 60-70 hrs a week, not because I am paid to nor am I expected to. It is just how I choose to do my work...because I CARE about what I do. It is easy to sit behind a computer screen and cast aspersions on a faceless entity you call "government"...but please understand that government is made up of a lot of very honest caring individuals also..without whom you would have none of those services you seem to enjoy...like schools, highways...oh..and someone ELSE to defend our country so you don't have to.

And also...I have never used FORCE to get what I needed to get done...ever. That is inane...just like lumping everyone on JPF in the same "pot" is ridiculous. Though we may have common interests...we also have widely disparate perspectives.

Unless I have missed something enormous in my study of history...I don't recall a single case where anarchy has provided a successful model. If you are such a firm believer in anarchy...why do you live here? LOL You could always go to some remote island somewhere and start your own anarchy. <G>

Of course I support your right to disagree with me and everyone else here in this democracy. Oh but I forgot...this democracy is evil.

Hugs,
Bobbie

It is easy to feel bad towards politicians. A lot leave themselves wide open for rebuke. Sadly nowadays it seems that most politicians are there as a career move rather than as a genuine calling to change and improve things.

Not so long ago politicains had principles and integrity. They wanted the best for their voters and country. Now they only want the best for themselves and a lot have simply lost touch with reality and subsequently have lost all respect and credibility.

The current crop in the UK just voted a huge pay rise for themselves yet cut pay increases for millions of public workers.

You don't have to tell me about someone ELSE defending the country, Been there done that and got the t-shirt. How many bullet holes do you have? USMC '67-71 18 mo. in country and shot once.

Don't tell me the government isn't about force. Try not paying taxes that you are forced to pay.

Government is about a group of people forcing others to do something.

And you can't find a single instance in 10000 yrs of history where government has "worked" with out using force on it's own people. Given the US has a somewhat benign system and doesn't kill too many of it's own people. Just 58,000 murdered by the government in VN and thousands more now.

The use of force against another in any case but self defense is evil. And if you work for government then you are using force to get paid taking money from people who don't want to give it is force.

Government is evil. I've killed people for the government and people have tried to kill me because I was part of an evil government.

Only my personal opinion, but one of the of the only two candidates I could have voted for just dropped out. The other is not far behind. Looks like another year where we really won't have the lesser of to evils to choose from. We'll soon have two liberals running for president...

All governments are by definition, going to be considered by some to be evil. This one is the least evil we can find. If not, we wouldn't be living here, and most of the other people in the world wouldn't want to live here. If you're living here and don't want to be, there's always a solution.

If you don't think our current president is pushing hard towards a dictatorship, read the book entitled: "Worse than Watergate", by John W. Dean (a former Nixon attorney).

On another note, I had a small amount of personal experience with politics when I became president of my Homeowners Association a few years ago (I'm not in that neighborhood now). It had 535 single-family homes and I had to run the monthly board meetings, keep the Association within budget, handle complaints and suggestions, follow various compliance laws, etc. It was an unpaid position.

Based on that experience, I have to admit that I now have some compassion for elected officials - not a LOT - but some.

There is simply no way to please everyone. No matter what decision you make as a politician towards the greater good, SOMEONE will fight it and sometimes vehemently. There are some real nut cases out there.

At the same time, you have to try to see the big picture and do what is best for whatever constituents you have. It is not an easy position.

Unfortunately, I think the current system is rigged in that an honest politician will NOT be able to rise in visibility enough to get the power to do some actual good on a large scale. Only those who are power craving, willing to step on anyone in their way, and lie, cheat or steal to get votes will be able to rise to the top. Ron Paul is an example of this theory in action.

Just curious Lwilliam

Which is Ron Paul? the honest one? or the one that will lie, cheat, steal, Etc?

Yeah, after re-reading my post, it's isn't very clear unless you know about Ron Paul, is it?

Unfortunately, he seems to be the one who WON'T lie, cheat, and steal - and therefore won't get elected.

Is this really what we have left to choose from?

We know basically nothing about Obama other than he's a great orator and he's charismatic. I've now asked 5 hard core Obama supporters to name me 1 significant accomplishment of his and so far there's not been a single example cited. (And running for President doesn't count). According to Democrats for Hilary, he apparently voted "Present" instead of Yes or No in over 100 votes to keep his record as uncontroversial as possible so he could run without a record to haunt him.

Clinton has tons of baggage and lots of negative detractors from both parties. She's facing claims of being a liar, shady business practices, failure in the responsibilities she did have (health care) and taking money and inside info for political favors. The Democrats are now accusing her of illegally laundering funds from Dubai through Bill Clinton to loan her campaign. And that's before the Republicans even get started on her in the general election. Yikes. Obama's wife says she'll vote for McCain over Clinton if she wins.

McCain seems to be considered honest and he's a war hero. The only negatives about him are that he supports the war from the left and that he's too liberal on the right. Right wing nutjobs say they'll vote for Clinton over McCain. His other faux pas was his support for allowing illegal immigrants an easy path to citizenship without securing the borders first.

Huckabee is too moderate for most serious conservatives and too religious (a creationist?) for everyone else.

Ron Paul isn't taken serious by either party or the media, but actually has a significant number of passionate followers, but they only make up about 5% of the Republican and about 1% of the Democratic party.

Have I missed anything?

Brian

Brian

You ran a pretty good analysis of the scene.
Personally I don't have any idea what qualifies Obama to be running for President. I think the only qualification he has is he is an American Citizen and he is Black. Well half Black. If he were not half black he would not be in the race at all.
Please do not take that as a racist remark. It is NOT intended to be. I think that in itself is what has kept him in the race.

Ron Paul....well Kind of like Ross Periot.
He scares people. They don't have a clue what he is really trying to tell them. People just don't believe we have to do the things he says to save ourselves. People have been fed the Republicat Party Bullshit for so long nothing else makes sense to them.

People don't want to hear the truth.

They want to hear; We are going to take care of you. We are gonna give you health care. We are going to protect you. We are a nation of immigrants so we have to let more in, no matter what. We will feed you if you can't find a job. We will bring back middle income jobs.

We will baby you, feed you, we gonna be your Momma.
I am HILLARY I will be MOMMA superior. And I'm gonna get rich doing it.

They don't want to hear the truth. That we better do something drastic real quick or we are going to be in trouble.
Give congress six months to get a health care plan in place or cancel their health insurance.
Disband the IRS, go to a flat tax. Set a minimum income bracket that does not pay taxes. (I think that is fair)
Build the damn fence then every time an Illegal is picked up for a traffic offense or arrested for anything deport them. No need to go looking for them They will get caught sooner or later..
No more TRADE Deficit. one dollar in one dollar out.

I could go on and on but what's the point.
People don't want to hear the truth.

Hey Doug

You said it brother. I'm taking my idea from Brewsters millions. I'm voting for "none of the above". Trust me folks this time around whether it be Mccain, Clinton or Obama no vote for some one else will have been wasted. A wasted vote would be voting for either of these three losers imo.
Derek